Your IT portfolio is already full. How do you handle a key stakeholder pushing for a new project addition?

It is very challenging, but here is how I will manage it: 1. Assess Strategic Alignment – Evaluate if the project aligns with business objectives and IT strategy. 2. Review Resource Availability – Analyze current workload, budget, and staffing constraints. 3. Prioritize Against Existing Projects – Compare urgency, ROI, and impact to determine trade-offs. 4. Consider Alternative Solutions – Explore phased implementation, outsourcing, or repurposing existing projects. 5. Communicate Transparently – Explain constraints and propose a feasible timeline or adjustments. 6. Escalate if Necessary – Involve leadership if prioritization conflicts remain unresolved.

When a key stakeholder pushes for a new project with an already full IT portfolio, prioritize transparency and collaboration. Acknowledge their request and explain the current workload with data—list active projects, timelines, and resource allocation. Ask them to define the new project’s urgency and business value, then compare it to existing priorities. Suggest a trade-off: “If we add this, which project should we delay or scale back?” Involve them in a quick review session with a visual portfolio map to align on what’s feasible. If it’s critical, propose a phased approach—start small, assess impact, then scale. This keeps them engaged without overloading the team.

Managing Capacity vs. New Priorities Instead of a quick yes or no, I focus on alignment and impact: 🔹 Prioritization – Does this project align with business goals? What trade-offs are needed? 🔹 Resource Evaluation – Can we optimize existing capacity or adjust timelines? 🔹 Transparent Communication – Setting clear expectations on feasibility and impact. Balancing innovation with realistic execution is key. #Leadership #ITStrategy #ProjectManagement

If a certain initiative of a stakeholder is not included in the roadmap, understand first how that state was reached : did it fall below the water line while prioritising for several stakeholders‘ asks? Or is there a new development or a market change that led to the request of changing plans? If the reason is not complexity/cost it is ultimately about the perception of priorities and what value creation is more pressing than the other. In that case, you can resolve : - by looking at data, research and indicators of ROI - by bringing the requestor of conflicting initiatives and decision makers together to review the current state. Such iterations should not be „every week“ but often enough. Usually a quarter‘s cadence is preferred

Meeting business objectives and bringing significant results to the corporation is always a goal to be met by technology. If we are talking about something that will bring potential results to the corporation, which could be financial or image results, beating the competition, we sit down and try to find a way, bring in external resources from approved companies, exchange smaller tasks on the roadmap for this more important one, and if nothing is possible, talk openly and transparently with whoever is necessary.

Good point on assessing impact first. Might be useful to spell out what 'impact' means in this context—like budget, team capacity, timeline disruption, or strategic misalignment. This helps frame the trade-offs more clearly for the stakeholder.

First I try to understand why the stakeholder feels it’s urgent—maybe it’s tied to revenue or compliance. Then I check if we can adjust timelines or drop low-priority tasks. If nothing can be shifted, I explain the current load clearly and suggest a phased approach or quick POC first. Sometimes just showing them the full picture helps cool things down. It’s all about balancing urgency and capacity.

Balancing stakeholder demands with portfolio capacity is a delicate art. When a key stakeholder pushes a new project into a full pipeline, start by understanding its strategic value. Evaluate it against current priorities and goals. Explore phasing, reallocation, or alternatives. Share data-driven insights on capacity and trade-offs. If the project is critical, consider delaying a lower-priority initiative, outsourcing, or temporary staffing. Sometimes, saying "no" diplomatically is essential to protect portfolio health. Open communication and alignment between IT strategy and business goals are key to navigating these challenges effectively.

I recommend a strategic approach that goes beyond standard selection criteria. Every project added means another is delayed or stopped: prioritization must evaluate which trade-offs optimize overall business value rather than just accommodating the loudest voice in the room. Therefore, the decision must account for more than just the new project's cost: - sunk cost of any cancelled projects; - the cost increases due to delays in other projects; - delayed realization of benefits from projects whose go-live would be impacted. By balancing these factors, I always ensured that portfolio decisions are rational and value-driven, while engaging stakeholders in a constructive way.

Suggest deferring the project to the next cycle. Ask if they’d be open to deprioritizing an existing project to accommodate the new one. Explore phased approaches or a proof of concept with minimal resources.

Quando um stakeholder insiste em adicionar um novo projeto a um portfólio já sobrecarregado, a resposta não deve ser um simples "sim" ou "não", mas uma análise estratégica baseada em impacto e viabilidade. O segredo está em transformar a demanda em uma discussão sobre valor: essa iniciativa supera as prioridades atuais? Existe uma real vantagem competitiva ou retorno mensurável? Se for essencial, quais concessões podem ser feitas sem comprometer entregas críticas? Transparência sobre recursos, riscos e cronogramas evita desalinhamentos e fortalece a tomada de decisão. Grandes líderes não apenas gerenciam demandas, mas moldam o futuro com escolhas inteligentes.